michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 8, 2007 6:26:46 GMT 4
Incoming Judiciary Chairman Leahy Targets Corruption In First Bills Of 110th Congress Leahy Introduces Bills To Combat War Profiteering, Public CorruptionWASHINGTON (Thursday, January 4) – Signaling a renewed emphasis on combating corruption at home and abroad, incoming Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), introduced a package of bills Thursday targeting corrupt officials and private companies seeking to defraud American taxpayers and troops. “Americans want the culture of corruption to end. From war profiteers and corrupt officials in Iraq, to convicted Administration officials, to influence-peddling lobbyists and, regrettably, even members of Congress, too many supposed public servants have been serving their own interests, rather than the public interest,” said Leahy. Many Democratic Senators joined Leahy in reintroducing a bill creating criminal penalties for war profiteers and cheats who would exploit taxpayer-funded efforts in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. The War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007 builds on earlier efforts by Leahy, who is also a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, to crack down on this type of rampant fraud and abuse. It is similar to legislation Leahy introduced in 2003, that was subsequently passed by the Senate as part of an appropriations bill but later torpedoed by the White House and the House Republican leadership, which stripped out the Leahy provision. Also on Thursday, Leahy joined with Senator Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), on another anti-corruption measure aimed at strengthening the tools available to federal prosecutors in combating public corruption. This bill gives investigators and prosecutors the statutory tools and the resources that they need to ensure that serious and insidious public corruption is detected and punished, including extending the statute of limitations on some of the worst crimes. “The American people staged an intervention during the November elections and made it clear that they would not stand for it any longer. They expect the Congress to take action, and these bills are a good first step toward meeting that call,” Leahy said. “We need to restore the people’s trust by acting to clean up the people’s government.” # # # # # Below are Senator Leahy’s statements on the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007 and the Effective Corruption Prosecutions Act of 2007 and, as well as summaries of the two bills and background information detailing a few examples of the fraud and war profiteering that have already occurred in Iraq and elsewhere. Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy On Introduction of the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007January 4, 2007 Mr. LEAHY: Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill that creates criminal penalties for war profiteers and cheats who would exploit taxpayer-funded efforts in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. Last year, despite the mounting evidence of widespread contractor fraud and abuse in Iraq, the Republican–controlled Senate would not act on it. Instead, the Congress took a terrible misstep in seeking to end the work of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. I have been proposing versions of this bill since 2003, when it did pass the Senate. Unfortunately, this crucial provision was stripped out of the final version of a bill by a Republican-controlled conference committee. There is growing evidence of widespread contractor fraud in Iraq, yet prosecuting criminal cases against these war profiteers is difficult under current law. We must crack down on this rampant fraud and abuse that squanders American taxpayers’ dollars and jeopardizes the safety of our troops abroad. That is why I renew my efforts for accountability and action with the introduction of the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007. I am pleased to join with Senators Bingaman, Kerry, Harkin, Rockefeller, Dorgan, Wyden, Schumer, Cantwell, Bill Nelson, Clinton, Lautenberg and Menendez to introduce this legislation. Widespread Fraud and War Profiteering in Iraq Congress has sent billions upon billions of dollars to Iraq with too little accountability and too few financial controls. More than $50 billion of this money has gone to private contractors hired to guard bases, drive trucks, feed and shelter the troops and rebuild the country. This is more than the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security. Instead of results from these companies, we are seeing penalties levied for allegations of fraud and abuse. At least 10 companies with billions of dollars in U.S. contracts for Iraq reconstruction have paid more than $300 million in penalties since 2000, to resolve allegations of bid rigging, fraud, delivery of faulty military parts and environmental damage. Seven other companies with Iraq reconstruction contracts have agreed to pay financial penalties without admitting wrongdoing. In 2005, Halliburton took in approximately $3.6 billion from contracts to serve U.S. troops and rebuild the oil industry in Iraq. Halliburton executives say that the company received about $1 billion a month for Iraq work in 2006. In addition, last month, we learned of new plans to spend hundreds of millions more to create jobs in Iraq. Last year, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that millions of U.S. taxpayer funds appropriated for Iraq reconstruction have been lost and diverted. Yet we continue to send more taxpayer funds to Iraq, without accountability. Too much of this money is unaccounted for, and many of the facilities and services that these funds were supposed to pay for are still nonexistent. We in Congress must ask – where did all the money go? We need to press for more accountability over the use and abuse of billions of taxpayers’ dollars sent as development aid to Iraq, not less. Accountability is Long Overdue A new law to combat war profiteering in Iraq and elsewhere is sorely needed and long overdue. Although there are anti-fraud laws to protect against the waste of U.S. tax dollars at home, no law expressly prohibits war profiteering or expressly confers jurisdiction on U.S. federal courts to hear fraud cases involving war profiteering committed overseas. The bill I introduced today would criminalize Awar profiteering@ – overcharging taxpayers in order to defraud and to profit excessively from a war, military action, or reconstruction efforts. It would also prohibit any fraud against the United States involving a contract for the provision of goods or services in connection with a war, military action, or for relief or reconstruction activities. This new crime would be a felony, subject to criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million, or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime. The bill also prohibits false statements connected with the provision of goods or services in connection with a war or reconstruction effort. This crime would also be a felony, subject to criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million, or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime. The measure also addresses weakness in the existing laws used to combat war profiteering, by providing clear authority for the Government to seek criminal penalties and to recover excessive profits for war profiteering overseas. These are strong and focused sanctions that are narrowly tailored to punish and deter fraud or excessive profiteering in contracts, both at home and abroad. The message sent by this bill is clear -- any act to exploit the crisis situation in Iraq or elsewhere overseas for exorbitant gain is unacceptable, reprehensible, and criminal. Such deceit demeans and exploits the sacrifices that our military personnel are making in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world. This bill also builds on a strong legacy of historical efforts to stem war profiteering. Congress implemented excessive-profits taxes and contract renegotiation laws after both World Wars, and again after the Korean War. Advocating exactly such an approach, President Roosevelt once declared it our duty to ensure that “a few do not gain from the sacrifices of the many.”A Fresh Start Our Government cannot in good faith ask its people to sacrifice for reconstruction efforts that allow some to profit unfairly. When U.S. taxpayers have been called upon to bear the burden of reconstruction contracts – where contracts are awarded in a system that offers little competition and even less accountability – concerns about wartime profiteering are a grave matter. Combating war profiteering is not a Democratic issue, or a Republican issue. Rather, it is a cause that all Americans can support. When I first introduced this bill in 2003, it came to be cosponsored by 21 Senators. The Senate Appropriations Committee also unanimously accepted these provisions during a Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the $87 billion appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan for Fiscal Year 2004, and this provision passed the Senate. Passing bipartisan war profiteering prevention legislation was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now. I am hopeful that in a new year, and with a new Congress, we can make a fresh start and forge a bipartisan partnership on this important issue that will result in passage of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. # # # # # War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007§ Criminalizes war profiteering, which is defined as materially overvaluing any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war and relief or reconstruction activities § Statute would strengthen the tools available to federal prosecutors to combat war profiteering by providing clear authority for the Government to seek criminal penalties and to recover excessive profits for war profiteering overseas. § Prohibits any fraud against the United States, Iraq, or any other foreign country involving a contract for the provision of any goods or services in connection with a war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities. § Subjects violators to up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine not to exceed the greater of $1,000,000 or twice the amount of any illegal gross profits, or both. § Prohibits making a false statement in any matter involving a contract for the provision of any goods or services in connection with a war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities. § Subjects violators of this provision to up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine not to exceed the greater of $1,000,000, or twice the amount of any illegal gross profits, or both. § Creates extraterritorial jurisdiction over offenses committed overseas, and covers any person in the United States or abroad who violates its provisions. (Background Information) Billions Of Taxpayer Dollars Lost To Fraud And Waste In Iraq And Elsewhere The United States has spent more than a quarter of a TRILLION dollars during its four years in Iraq. Over $50 BILLION -- more than the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security -- has been spent to hire private contractors to guard bases, drive trucks, feed and shelter the troops and rebuild the country. BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars are unaccounted for, according to a finding by the special inspector general examining the Iraq reconstruction effort. Since 2000, 10 companies with billions of dollars in U.S. contracts for Iraq reconstruction have paid more than $300 MILLION IN PENALTIES to resolve allegations of bid rigging, fraud, delivery of faulty military parts and environmental damage in connection with other projects. Examples of Fraud and Waste - Custer Battles, Halliburton and BechtelCUSTER BATTLES is accused of bilking the government out of $50 MILLION Custer Battles billed the government nearly $10 MILLION when its actual costs were less than $4 MILLION, according to a government investigation. Custer Battles over billed electricity costs by $326,000 - Actual electricity charges of $74,000 were billed at $400,000. Custer Battles over billed for trucks that did not run by $572,000 – Actual purchase price of $228,000 for faulty trucks were billed to government for $800,000. The two largest government contractors in Iraq -- Bechtel Corp. and Halliburton Co. -- have been fined several times in the past four years. HALLIBURTON CO. averaged about $ 1 BILLION A MONTH from the government for work in Iraq in 2006, according to executives. The company took in $3.6 BILLION last year from contracts to serve U.S. troops and rebuild the oil industry in Iraq. A pattern of fraud, waste, and corruption by Halliburton in Iraq emerged through news reports between December 2003 and May 2004. In December, a Pentagon investigation found evidence that Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) had overcharged the U.S. government some $61 MILLION for fuel deliveries from Kuwait to Iraq. In January, Halliburton admitted to the Pentagon that two of its employees took up to $6 million in kickbacks for awarding a Kuwaiti-based company with work in Iraq. Then in early February it was reported that the company had agreed to repay the U.S. government some $27 million for meals that were never served to American troops. Bills From Five-Star, Beachfront Hotel And Drivers Paid to Haul Empty Trucks - In May 2006, the Coalition Provisional Authority's inspector general started raising questions about the bills that Halliburton had racked up at a five-star beachfront hotel near Kuwait City. And 12 Halliburton truck drivers claimed they risked their lives driving empty trucks in Iraq while their employer billed the government for hauling absolutely nothing. Investigation of Overcharging And Potential Connection to Nigeria Bribery Scheme - Federal authorities are also investigating whether Halliburton broke the law by using a subsidiary to do business in Iran, whether the company overcharged for work done for the Pentagon in the Balkans and whether it was involved in an alleged $180 million bribery scheme in Nigeria. The company admitted in 2003 that it improperly paid $2.4 million to a Nigerian tax official. BECHTEL CORP. paid more than $110,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department in 2000 and 2001 to settle alleged safety and environmental violations. Bechtel has prime construction contracts in Iraq worth more than $2 billion. Fines Exceeding $86 Million - Bechtel hired three subcontractors in Iraq that have been fined more than $86 million in the past four years, though none had been banned from getting new contracts. Others Punished For Waste, Fraud and Abuse Of Govt. Contracts American International Contractors Inc., paid $4.7 million in fines in 2000 after pleading guilty to bid rigging on a U.S.-funded water project in Egypt, according to published reports. AICI has part of a $325 million contract to rebuild Iraq's transportation systems, has a share of a $500 million contract for emergency construction needs in the Pentagon's Central Command region, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan, and is in a partnership that has a $70 million construction contract at Al-Udeid air base in Qatar, used to support troops in Iraq. Fluor Corp., paid $8.5 million to the Defense Department in 2001 to settle charges it improperly billed the government for work benefiting its commercial clients, according to published reports. Fluor and AMEC created a joint venture that has $1.7 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq's electricity, water, sewer and trash removal infrastructure. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., paid a $969,000 fine in 2002 for environmental damage in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, according to published reports. Bechtel awarded the company a subcontract to clear the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr. Northrop Grumman Corp., whose Vinnell Corp. subsidiary was awarded a $48 million contract to train the new Iraqi Army last year, according to published reports. Northrop Grumman has been penalized $191.7 million in the past four years, including $750,000 paid to the Pentagon in 2000 in a case involving allegations of providing faulty replacement parts for the JSTARS airborne surveillance system. # # # # # Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy On Introduction of the Effective Corruption Prosecutions Act of 2007 January 4, 2007 I am pleased to join with Senator Pryor today to introduce the Effective Corruption Prosecutions Act of 2007, a bill to strengthen the tools available to federal prosecutors in combating public corruption. This bill gives investigators and prosecutors the statutory tools and the resources they need to ensure that serious and insidious public corruption is detected and punished. In November, voters sent a strong message that they were tired of the culture of corruption. From war profiteers and corrupt officials in Iraq to convicted Administration officials to influence-peddling lobbyists and, regrettably, even members of Congress, too many supposed public servants were serving their own interests, rather than the public interest. The American people staged an intervention and made it clear that they would not stand for it any longer. They expect the Congress to take action. We need to restore the people’s trust by acting to clean up the people’s government.The Senate’s new leadership is introducing important lobbying reform and ethics legislation. Similar legislation passed the Senate last year, but stalled in the House. This is a vital first step. But the most serious corruption cannot be prevented only by changing our own rules. Bribery and extortion are committed by people bent on getting around the rules and banking that they won’t get caught. These offenses can be difficult to detect and even harder to prove. Because they attack the core of our democracy, these offenses must be found out and punished. Congress must send a signal that it will not tolerate this corruption by providing better tools for federal prosecutors to combat it. This bill will do exactly that. First, the bill extends the statute of limitations for the most serious public corruption offenses. Specifically, it extends the statute of limitations from five years to eight years for bribery, deprivation of honest services, and extortion by a public official. This is an important step because public corruption cases are among the most difficult and time-consuming cases to investigate and prosecute. They often require use of informants and electronic monitoring, as well as review of extensive financial and electronic records, techniques which take time to develop and implement. Bank fraud, arson, and passport fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Since public corruption offenses are so important to our democracy and these cases are so difficult to investigate and prove, a more modest extended statute of limitations for these offenses is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs. Corrupt officials should not be able to get away with their ill-gotten gains just by winning the waiting game. This bill also facilitates the investigation and prosecution of an important offense known as federal program bribery. (Title 18, United States Code, section 666). Federal program bribery is the key federal statute for prosecuting bribery involving state and local officials, as well as officials of the many organizations that receive substantial federal money. This bill would allow agents and prosecutors investigating this important offense to request authority to conduct wiretaps and to use federal program bribery as a basis for a racketeering charge. Wiretaps, when appropriately requested and authorized, are an important method for agents and prosecutors to gain evidence of corrupt activities, which can otherwise be next to impossible to prove without an informant. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute is also an important tool which helps prosecutors target organized crime and corruption. Agents and prosecutors may currently request authority to conduct wiretaps to investigate many serious offenses, including bribery of federal officials and even sports bribery, and may predicate RICO charges on these offenses, as well. It is only reasonable that these important tools also be available for investigating the similar and equally important offense of federal program bribery. Lastly, this bill authorizes $25 million in additional federal funds over each of the next four years to give federal investigators and prosecutors needed resources to go after public corruption. Last month, FBI Director Mueller in written testimony to the Judiciary Committee called public corruption the FBI’s top criminal investigative priority. However, a September 2005 Report by Department of Justice Inspector General Fine found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. The report also found declines in resources dedicated to investigating public corruption, in corruption cases initiated, and in cases forwarded to US Attorney’s Offices. I am heartened by Director Mueller’s assertion that there has recently been an increase in the number of agents investigating public corruption cases and the number of cases investigated, but I remain concerned by the Inspector General’s findings. I am concerned because the FBI in recent years has diverted resources away from criminal law priorities, including corruption, into counterterrorism. The FBI may need to divert further resources to cover the growing costs of Sentinel, their data management system. The Department of Justice has similarly diverted resources, particularly from United States Attorney’s Offices. Additional funding is important to compensate for this diversion of resources and to ensure that corruption offenses are aggressively pursued. My bill will give the FBI, the United States Attorney’s Offices, and the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice new resources to hire additional public corruption investigators and prosecutors. They can finally have the manpower they need to track down and make these difficult cases, and root out the corruption. If we are serious about addressing the egregious misconduct that we have recently witnessed, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the resources they need to enforce our public corruption laws. I strongly urge Congress to do more to restore the public's trust in their government. I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. # # # # # Effective Corruption Prosecutions Act of 2007Provides federal investigators and prosecutors the statutory tools and the resources needed to ensure that serious and insidious public corruption is detected and punished. Extends the statute of limitations for the most serious public corruption offenses, including bribery, deprivation of honest services, and extortion by a public official, from five years to eight years. Facilitates the investigation and prosecution of a key federal statute used for prosecuting bribery involving state and local officials, as well as officials of the many organizations that receive substantial federal money Authorizes $25 million over each of the next four years to give federal investigators and prosecutors needed resources to go after public corruption. Source:leahy.senate.gov/press/200701/010407b.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Feb 13, 2007 17:15:56 GMT 4
House Democrats Unveil Measure Denouncing Iraq Buildup Tue. 2/13/07Just a note, before you read the following, I heard that President[sic] Bush is being interviewed on Cspan's Washington Journal this morning....THAT should be interesting....you might want to tune in....I hope he has to field viewer call-in questions!....MichelleHouse Democrats Unveil Measure Denouncing Iraq Buildup By ROBIN TONER and MICHAEL LUO Published: February 13, 2007 WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — Democrats unveiled a resolution on Monday that would formally express the House’s disapproval of President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq, beginning an intense debate and political struggle that is to end in a vote on Friday.The nonbinding resolution, two simple clauses that also express support for the troops, is expected to pass with overwhelming Democratic support but also with a bloc of votes from Republicans increasingly disenchanted with the administration’s Iraq policy. “I’m just not convinced that deploying 20,000 additional troops is going to resolve anything favorable for us,” said Representative Howard Coble, Republican of North Carolina, who estimated that 20 to 25 Republicans would vote for the resolution, although other estimates ran higher. Republicans who take umbrage at those who break ranks, he said, need to face political reality. “We lost our majority in the Congress last November primarily because of the issue of the Iraq war,” he said, adding that telephone calls and letters to his office are critical, by 10 to 1, of the conduct of the war. Republican leaders tried to hold the line. In an interview on Monday with C-Span, President Bush suggested that he would not be focused on the week’s discussions on Capitol Hill. “In terms of watching the debate, I’ve got a lot to do,” he said. “It’s not as if the world stops when the Congress does.” Representative John A. Boehner, the Republican leader, said the Democrats’ resolution was “the first step in the Democrats’ plan to cut off funding for American troops who are in harm’s way.” He urged consideration of an alternative resolution that renounces any cuts in financing. Democrats scoffed at the Republican charges as a diversion from the fundamental debate over Mr. Bush’s war strategy. “They’re trying to do everything but focus on the policy,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus. “The more there’s a focus on the escalation, the more they lose Republicans.” Democrats are planning 36 hours of floor debate, beginning Tuesday, showcasing early the party’s military veterans — including the newest members who fought in Iraq. Party leaders expressed confidence that “a strong majority of the House” would vote for the resolution, in the words of Brendan Daly, spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “It’s important to show there’s significant opposition in both parties to the president’s plan.” Democrats were intent on avoiding the procedural and political stalemate that stymied debate over Iraq in the Senate last week; in the House, the Democratic majority has much greater control over what legislation comes to a vote, and Democratic leaders intended to use it. They are expected to block a vote on a Republican alternative. The House resolution is co-sponsored by Ike Skelton, chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Tom Lantos, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee; and Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, a longtime Republican critic of the war. It declares the House to be resolved that “Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq” and that “Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.” Both sides foreshadowed a bitter debate. Republican talking points, circulated in the House, warn that a “nonbinding resolution weakens morale” and “gives comfort to the enemy.” Speaker Pelosi said in a statement that the vote on Friday would signify “whether the House understands the message the American people are sending about the policies used to implement this war: they have not worked, they will not work, and they must be changed.” But for many lawmakers, this will also be an intensely personal choice. Representative Wayne T. Gilchrest, Republican of Maryland, said he had no qualms with breaking with his party on this issue. He has attended 21 funerals in his district for service members who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan, he said. Two more are scheduled this week. “This is not about my party,” said Mr. Gilchrest, who received a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star as a marine in Vietnam. “This is not about party politics. This is about your conscience, your soul, your mind, your heart, your gut.” Source: www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/washington/13cong.html------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Concurrent Resolution on the President's Escalation Plan 12 Feb 2007 This week the House of Representatives will be considering the following Concurrent Resolution. Disapproving of the decision of the President [sic] announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq. [Click here for .pdf.] www.speaker.gov/pdf/IRAQCR.pdf
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Feb 17, 2007 14:27:06 GMT 4
DoD Deploys 1,000 Troops As House Passes Resolution Condemning Troop Surge --Army Unit's Deployment Accelerated 16 Feb 2007 The 3rd Infantry Division Headquarters, based in Fort Stewart, Ga., will deploy to Iraq sooner than originally scheduled, DoD officials announced today. The unit was scheduled to begin its deployment in June, but will now begin its deployment in March. This three-month acceleration affects about 1,000 servicemembers. Source/go to:www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?id=3092U.S. House Rebukes Bush War Strategy Troop Surge Overwhelmingly Fails To Get House Support, 246-182POSTED: 4:25 am EST February 16, 2007 UPDATED: 6:37 pm EST February 16, 2007 WASHINGTON -- After a mid-term election power shift driven in part by voter dissatisfaction with the war, Democrats led the U.S. House to issue a rare wartime rebuke to the president on Friday. Lawmakers voted in favor of a nonbinding resolution, 246-182, that voices support for U.S. troops fighting the war but criticizes the plan to increase the size of the U.S. force in Iraq by more than 21,000 troops. Democrats were nearly unanimous in their support for it and see it as a first step toward forcing a change in administration policy. They are contemplating measures that would set strict conditions on combat deployments. Seventeen Republicans broke ranks to support the measure. White House Reacts In response to the vote, an official White House statement said that the plan "enjoys the support of the Iraqi government and U.S. military leadership, including Gen. David Petraeus, Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, who recently was confirmed to his post by an 81-0 vote in the Senate." "Soon, Congress will have the opportunity to show its support for the troops in Iraq by funding the supplemental appropriations request the President has submitted, and which our men and women in combat are counting on. The President believes that the Congress should provide the full funding and flexibility our Armed Forces need to succeed in their mission to protect our country," the statement said. White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters earlier in the day, before the vote, that the president had spoken with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "about what's actually going on, on the ground. And this is something that would behoove members of Congress to keep an eye on." The president has said that the success of his war strategy depends on al-Maliki following through on a daunting list of commitments. They include increasing the number of capable Iraqi troops into Baghdad, and taking on Shiite militias. Other goals include investing in reconstruction projects that help both Sunnis and Shiites. The Senate has been unable to clear a procedural hurdle to debate a similar Iraq resolution. It plans to hold another test vote Saturday in a rare weekend session. Distributed by Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Source: www.nbc30.com/news/11028610/detail.htmlHouse Anti-Troop Surge ResolutionGo To:www.nbc30.com/download/2007/0216/11034007.pdfHouse Passes Iraq Resolution With 17 Votes From G.O.P. By DAVID STOUT Published: February 16, 2007 WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 — After four days of emotional debate over the extent of presidential powers in wartime and the proper role of Congress, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution today denouncing President Bush’s plan to send more American troops to Iraq. The 246 to 182 vote in favor of the non-binding but nevertheless important measure set the stage for a crucial Senate debate on Saturday on how to debate the administration’s Iraq policy, or indeed whether it should be debated at all. There had been virtually no doubt about the outcome in the House today, given the Democratic majority in the chamber and the fact that a significant number of Republicans had also signaled their backing for the resolution, which expresses support for American troops but not for their commander-in-chief. Seventeen Republicans voted for the resolution. Two Democrats, Jim Marshall of Georgia and Gene Taylor of Mississippi, voted against it. Mr. Marshall is the son and grandson of Army generals and was wounded in combat in Vietnam, according to The Almanac of American Politics. Mr. Taylor has a generally conservative voting record and is “strongly pro-defense,” the almanac says. Six representatives cast no vote. Before the votes were counted, Republican leaders were undeterred by the likelihood that they would be defeated. “The ‘no’ votes are the right votes,” said Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip. The Republican minority leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, warned that the resolution, while symbolic, charted “a very treacherous path” that could lead to cutting off money for the American campaign. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said that the time had come to give American troops “a course of action that is worthy of their sacrifice,” by opposing Mr. Bush’s plan to increase troop strength in Iraq. As many of her Democratic colleagues did, Ms. Pelosi said the war in Iraq is not part of the battle against terrorism, but rather a distraction from it. But Representative Peter King of New York, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, said, “This war in Iraq cannot be looked at in a vacuum,” and is indeed a theater in the war on terror. One Democrat after another spoke in favor of a resolution, apparently headed for passage, that criticizes Mr. Bush’s decision to send more than 20,000 additional troops, calling it part of a deeply flawed strategy that has stirred more violence in the Middle East and damaged America’s image. And one Republican after another rose in opposition, accusing the Democrats of rushing to judgment without giving the president’s new security plan a chance to work and warning that a vote for the resolution would embolden America’s enemies and damage the morale of its fighting men and women. Despite the emotions on both sides, there were moments of agreement. Ms. Pelosi drew sustained applause when she said that everyone in the chamber prarised the valor and sacrifice of Americans serving in Iraq. That the two sides saw the resolution in starkly different terms was reflected in the remarks of two representatives from New York State. Louise Slaughter, a Democrat from the western part of the state, said the Bush administration’s Iraq campaign had been marked by “mismanagement and misinformation,” and that United States forces had been given an impossible mission, to “find a military solution to a political problem.” It is high time, Ms. Slaughter said, for Congress to provide “a clear, unambiguous answer to the most important issue facing the country,” and formally repudiate Mr. Bush’s policy. But Vito Fossella, a Republican whose district includes Staten Island and part of Brooklyn, said the resolution would sound “a clarion call of retreat” and set the nation’s foes to wondering where the United States will retreat next. “You cannot surrender the battlefield and win the war,” said Mr. Fossella, who spoke immediately after Ms. Slaughter in the debate. With Democrats holding 233 seats in the House, to 201 for the Republicans (one seat became vacant this week with the death of Charles Norwood, a Georgia Republican), the outcome today was widely expected. Unlike the Senate, the House does not operate under rules that allow a sufficiently large minority to hold off votes indefinitely through a filibuster. The Senate, where a resolution was stalled last week by parliamentary maneuvering, will convene in a rare Saturday session this weekend, when the Democratic leaders hope to force a debate on the resolution. Some supporters of the House resolution hope, and opponents fear, that today’s symbolic vote — such resolutions are not laws and have no practical effect — will open the way for more drastic steps to curb the president’s power by attaching restrictions to spending bills. By 11 a.m., 345 of the 434 House members had spoken in 44 hours of debate over four days, C-Span reported. Democrats declared again and again that a vote against the president’s policy is not a vote against American troops, while many Republicans said the opposite. Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California and one of the harshest critics of the administration, said that Mr. Bush and his aides had bungled the war and lost the peace. “We cannot achieve the illusions of the Bush administration,” Mr. Waxman said, asserting that the entire Middle East “threatens to be engulfed by the forces we have unleashed.” But a California Republican, Elton Gallegly, said the United States must persevere in Iraq because “we’re at war with Islamic jihadists.” Failure in Iraq, he said, would give terrorists a sanctuary like the one they enjoyed in Afghanistan before the Taliban was toppled. Democrats said the United States had already done all it could in Iraq. David Wu of Oregon said Iraq had been eliminated as a threat to the United States; now, he said, “we referee a civil war between the people of Iraq,” part of a conflict that could last “another thousand years.” But Representative Barbara Cubin, the Wyoming Republican, said Mr. Bush’s strategy was political and economic as well as military, and should be given a chance. “This resolution sends a dangerous message to the terrorists in Iraq,” Ms. Cubin said. “They have succeeded in dividing us.” Some Democrats spoke of a different message, one delivered last November. “The American people have demanded a change in direction,” said Joseph Crowley, whose district covers part of the Bronx and Queens. Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina was one of those Republicans who broke with his party leaders and voted for the resolution. He said he had concluded that the conflict in Iraq was a civil war, and that a continued American presence there “makes no sense at all.” Source:www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/world/middleeast/16cnd-cong.htmlFINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 99(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined) H CON RES 63 YEA-AND-NAY 16-Feb-2007 3:22 PM QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution BILL TITLE: Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq Go To: clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll099.xml
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Feb 18, 2007 6:36:46 GMT 4
see previous post for info on House votesSenate votes against debating Iraq war rebukeSat Feb 17, 2007 7:29 PM GMT By Susan Cornwell WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate refused to consider a resolution on Saturday denouncing President George W. Bush's Iraq troop buildup that the U.S. House of Representatives passed the day before. For the second time in two weeks, the Senate voted not to debate a non-binding measure that would repudiate Bush's recent decision to send 21,500 troops to Iraq to bolster security in Baghdad and Anbar province. The Democrats had wanted to bring the measure to the floor but failed to overcome Republican resistance. The vote was 56 in favour and 34 against. Under Senate rules, 60 votes were needed to bring the resolution to the floor for debate. Before the vote, Democrats argued in vain for minority Republicans to break with Bush and support taking up the measure. The Senate's rare Saturday session came on a day U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made an unannounced visit to Baghdad. "If we believe plunging into Baghdad neighbourhoods with more American troops will not increase chances of success, we are duty bound to say so, and a minority of senators should not thwart that expression," said Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. The 435-member House, capping four days of impassioned debate, defied the Republican president on Friday, voting 246 to 182 against the troop increase in what amounted to the first such rebuke since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. The House measure passed with support of virtually all the chamber's 233 Democrats and 17 of its 201 Republicans, many worried about their political fate if they stick with the president on the war. Polls say most Americans oppose adding more troops in Iraq. But in the Senate, procedural rules allow a minority to block debate and Democrats have but a 51-49 majority. The upper chamber has been deadlocked on the issue since February 5. On that day, an attempt failed to bring up a similar resolution opposing the troop buildup. Senate Republican leaders say they oppose considering measures denouncing Bush's Iraq strategy unless Democrats also agree to allow a vote on a rival Republican-backed proposal forbidding a cutoff of funding to U.S. troops. Republicans on Saturday accused Democrats of being divided on the funding issue and afraid to bring it to a vote. "The reason we are here on Saturday playing stupid political games ... is because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are afraid to take a vote on cutting off funding," declared Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. "This is a very, very sad Saturday for the U.S. Senate on the heels of a disaster in the U.S. House," Graham said. House Democrats are considering ways to restrict Bush's use of $93.4 billion in new war funds to keep him from using it for the troop buildup. Several Republicans condemned that as a "slow bleed" of the war effort. While the House-passed resolution would not force Bush to act, supporters hope it will prompt him to reverse unpopular war policies and start bringing home troops. The White House said Friday the House was inviting failure in Iraq. "Members of Congress are taking their own gamble here, the gamble on failure," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. "The president has a plan for success, it's all aimed at success." (Additional reporting by Donna Smith)
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved. Source: tinyurl.com/2e5qfa------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ They do not want to debate2/17/07 3:28:45 PM Eastern Standard Time Dear Friend, The House of Representatives already voted 246-182. Now it's the Senate's turn to send a message to George Bush that his plan to send tens of thousands more American soldiers to a civil war in Iraq is wrong. That is why I scheduled a rare Saturday vote. However, I just left the Senate floor where Republicans once again voted to block debate on the President's escalation plan. Tens of thousands of you joined me two weeks ago and sent a message to Senate Republicans: Stop blocking debate on escalating the war in Iraq - let's have an up or down vote on the President's plan. If you already signed this petition, please forward this email to ten of your friends or family and ask them to sign. If you haven't please sign right now by visiting: giveemhellharry.com/iraqresolutionThose who decided to block debate made a choice: instead of joining the American people in opposing more of the same in Iraq, they essentially gave the President a green light to escalate the war. Most of the Republican minority voted to protect George Bush from an embarrassing vote because they are trying to divert attention from the issue at hand and tie the Senate in procedural knots. They are hiding behind weak and misleading arguments about the Senate's rules. These arguments are diversions. Tell Senate Republicans: Stop blocking debate on escalating the war in Iraq - let's have an up or down vote on the President's plan. giveemhellharry.com/iraqresolutionIn the six weeks since the start of the 110th Congress, the Senate has accomplished so much. We passed sweeping ethics legislation. We passed a minimum wage increase. And we kept the government open for business by finishing up the appropriations process the 109th Congress failed to complete. Compared to previous Congresses, it's an impressive record of achievement. But there's still one issue that demands the Senate's attention: the war in Iraq. We can't put this issue off any longer. Thank you, Harry Reid
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Mar 22, 2007 14:55:08 GMT 4
Kucinich Boosts ImpeachmentMoveon Betrays Peace MovementProgressive Democrats in Congress Can Stop the SupplementalPlease call your member of congress today3/22/07 3:04:45 AM Eastern Standard Time Dear Friends,Four years ago this week, in violation of international law, standing upon a mountain of lies, the United States went to war against the people of Iraq. Our nation now has the moral responsibility for the deaths of as many as 650,000 to one million innocent Iraqi civilians, for the destruction of Iraq, and the theft of billions of dollars in oil assets. Those who told lies to take us into war should be held accountable under the U.S. Constitution and at the International Criminal Court. Instead of true accountability on the war, this week Congress may give the President and Vice President more than $100 billion to keep the war going through the end of their term. More war, more civilian deaths, more U.S. soldiers killed or maimed. Less money for housing, for health care, for education, for seniors here at home as we borrow money from Beijing to keep the war going in Baghdad. Instead of accountability, the appropriations bill will mandate the privatization of $6 trillion in Iraq oil assets, and it will provide money which can be used to attack Iran in an attempt to grab another $6 trillion in Iranian oil assets for the oil companies. We must support the troops, stop the war, end the occupation, and support HR 1234.Please call your member of congress today. Thank you, Dennis J KucinichHR 1234 - Spread the word! See previous post here at: Dennis Kucinich For President thread Posted by michelle on Mar 14, 2007, 2:11pm The Time for Action on Iraq Or: kucinich.us/files/pdfs/HR_1234.pdf------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message from Democrats.com:Kucinich Boosts ImpeachmentRep. Dennis Kucinich took another step towards introducing Articles of Impeachment with a video: "We need to reevaluate the direction of this administration by looking at its conduct in office, by determining whether it has faithfully followed the laws of our nation. I'm prepared to start that process. I began this week with a speech on the floor of the House, which warned the administration that its actions toward Iran already constitute a case to ask the question about impeachment. So I'm asking you, what do you think? Do you think it's time?" Watch the video and answer him here:kucinich.us/node/3696Vote in our poll: Should Rep. Kucinich Introduce Articles of Impeachment?www.democrats.com/kucinich-impeachment-pollAlso, some interesting info about MoveOn.org and manipulation of citizen's anti-war efforts:Moveon Betrays Peace MovementEven as hundreds of thousands were protesting the 4th anniversary of Bush's illegal and disastrous war in Iraq, Moveon was urging its 3.2 million members to support $93 billion more for Bush's War. Moveon conducted a dishonest member "poll" which deliberately left out the Barbara Lee Amendment that would limit new spending to a "fully funded withdrawal" of our troops by the end of the year. www.democrats.com/move-over-moveonMoveon used its dishonest poll to claim 85% of its members support the $93 billion Supplemental. Send a message to Moveon by voting in our poll:www.democrats.com/iraq-supplemental-pollAnd if you want to quit Moveon, tell them why:pol.moveon.org/feedback/fb/form.html?tp=suggestAnd More:Progressive Democrats in Congress Can Stop the SupplementalThe Iraq Supplemental can be defeated if only 15 of the 68 progressive House Democrats vote against it. Under tremendous pressure from Speaker Pelosi, only 6 Democrats are definitely voting no: Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Raul Grijalva, and Pete Stark. Another 7 are leaning no: Steve Cohen, Danny Davis, Lloyd Doggett, Keith Ellison, Sheila Jackson Lee, Juanita Millender-McDonald, and Diane Watson. Speaker Pelosi says the only alternative to her toothless bill is a blank check for Bush. But Rep. Pete Stark says simply: "We can write a better bill." We need your help calling all 68 members of the Progressive Caucus and telling us what they say:www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/19669------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The most recent from MoveOn: Ask Your Rep. to support the Iraq Accountability Act Date: 3/21/07 1:30:04 PM Eastern Standard Time Dear MoveOn member, Yesterday you saw the results of our poll—85 percent of MoveOn members want to work to pass Speaker Pelosi's plan for Iraq. Today, we have to get to work. This vote is going to be incredibly close and it'll be one of the most important ones of the year. Every member of Congress should hear from their constituents today. The critical piece of this plan is that it sets a timeline for withdrawing our troops from Iraq—it sets a date certain to end the war. President Bush doesn't want to set a deadline to exit Iraq1—his policy would strand our troops in the middle of what has become a religious civil war. Can you call your Rep. and ask him to support the Iraq Accountability Act to set a date certain to bring our troops home?
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 10, 2007 14:46:24 GMT 4
Subj: Turn Up the Heat on Congress 1)Stop funding an unwinnable occupation. 2)Start moving toward impeachment of a White House that is out of control. Date: 5/10/07 2:27:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: info@pdamerica.org (Tim Carpenter, Progressive Democrats of America)With national dailies reporting today that the Pentagon is ready to send ten combat brigades to Iraq to sustain this summer’s “troop surge” into next year, it’s time to turn up the heat on our Democratic-led Congress by telling them: 1)Stop funding an unwinnable occupation. 2)Start moving toward impeachment of a White House that is out of control. On both demands, the time is now: Call your representative in the U.S. House (switchboard: 202-224-3121). After Bush vetoed an Iraq supplemental funding bill because it had timelines for withdrawal of most troops, the House Democratic leadership is now proposing a new $95 billion bill without withdrawal timelines. The vote is expected Thursday evening. The bill provides $40 billion in immediate funding, and would release the rest in July after Bush certifies that the Iraqi government is meeting “benchmarks” of progress. The antiwar movement opposes the new Iraq supplemental bill because it continues to lavishly fund the escalated occupation – without a withdrawal timeline. And one of the benchmarks of Iraqi “progress” promoted by this Democratic bill is an oil law that privatizes Iraqi oil on behalf of U.S. and multinational oil interests! So urge your House member immediately (202-224-3121) to vote NO on the Supplemental and any Iraq funding that goes beyond a safe, orderly, prompt withdrawal of all U.S. troops and military contractors.And while you’re calling, please ask your Congress member to co-sponsor H.R. 333, Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Cheney. The bill, drafted by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), bases impeachment on Cheney’s manipulation of intelligence to launch the Iraq invasion and on his threats of aggressive action against Iran. The bill is now co-sponsored by William. Lacy Clay (D-MO) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). We need co-sponsors for this bill impeaching Cheney first! Email your Congress member: capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=9672446&PROCESS=Take+Action
or call them at 202-224-3121.The antiwar movement understands better than Democratic leaders in Congress that the best way to subdue Team Bush/Cheney and prevent further deepening of U.S. involvement in Iraq and Iran is by putting the White House on the defensive through serious investigations, accountability and impeachment. It was the threat of impeachment that curtailed further Nixonian aggression in Southeast Asia. PDA played a big role in the recent California Democratic Party resolution on impeachment; six more towns in Massachusetts have just called for impeachment. Let’s keep the heat on Congress by saying NO to funding the Iraq occupation and YES to holding this White House accountable! In peace, Tim Carpenter Progressive Democrats of America is a grassroots PAC that works both inside the Democratic Party and outside in movements for peace and justice. Our goal: Extend the victory of Nov. 2006 into a permanent, progressive majority. PDA’s advisory board includes six members of Congress and activist leaders such as Tom Hayden, Cindy Sheehan, Medea Benjamin and Rev. Lennox Yearwood. More info: pdamerica.org/. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [glow=red,2,300]Action Alert [/glow] Impeach Cheney First! Ask your Rep, to support H.Res. 333 On Tuesday April 24, Rep. Dennis Kucinich acted. Late in the afternoon, Kucinich filed Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard Cheney citing three reasons:Manipulating intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that misled us into war with Iraq, Manipulating intelligence about Al Queda’s connections to Iraq, which contributed to leading us into the war in Iraq, Openly threatening aggression against Iran, and in so doing undermining our national security. This is not about politics or the next election, it is about wrongdoing at the highest level of our government and it should be punished -- beginning with Vice President Cheney. No one is above the law. Now is the time to act. Tell your Congress member to support H. Res. 333.Read the Articles of Impeachment and supporting documents:kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf [glow=red,2,300]Take Action:[/glow] capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=9672446&PROCESS=Take+Action
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 11, 2007 1:27:38 GMT 4
[glow=red,2,300]UPDATE TO PAST POST 5/10/07 5:30 pm[/glow]
Subj: Iraq Withdrawal Vote TODAY (Pass this on) Date: 5/10/07 4:29:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: info@pdamerica.org (Tim Carpenter, for PDA)
We have hours to act. Today (Thurs.), the U.S. House will finally have a chance to vote for prompt withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The antiwar movement has struggled hard for this moment. Spread the word.
Contact your Congress member now (switchboard 202-224-3121) to support the James McGovern bill to bring our troops home.
The measure that will get a full House vote today is a slightly watered-down version of the McGovern bill that PDA has long championed. It’s not a perfect bill, but it’s worth fighting for. The McGovern bill (now “H.R. 2337”) calls for redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin within 90 days of enactment, and to be completed 180 days later. That means most troops out of Iraq by early 2008.
The McGovern bill would withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq except forces engaged in limited operations against al-Qaeda and foreign terrorists, or in training Iraqi troops.
Contact every Democrat or independent-minded Congress member you can to urge support for McGovern’s measure. That phone number is 202-224-3121. Finally, thanks to pressure from the peace movement, the House leadership is allowing a vote on a withdrawal proposal that expresses the will of a majority of the American public.
McGovern’s 2337* will be voted on as an amendment to the Iraq supplemental funding bill. If it fails, the Democratic leadership is expected to put forward an Iraq supplemental bill that funds months of occupation without a timeline for withdrawal. The antiwar movement opposes that approach.
Now is the time to vote YES for peace. Vote YES on withdrawal from Iraq. Vote YES on the McGovern measure – H.R. 2337!
NO MORE FUNDING OF AN UNWINNABLE OCCUPATION!
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 15, 2007 7:57:15 GMT 4
[glow=red,2,300]UPDATE[/glow] on the The McGovern bill vote (“H.R. 2337”) and Senate to vote on ending war fundingSubj: Historic Vote: Our Future Date: 5/11/07 8:33:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: info@pdamerica.org (Tim Carpenter, PDA National Director)I want to thank PDAers and our allies for a magnificent mobilization yesterday, and the previous 18 months. Finally, pressure from below forced the Democratic leadership to allow a full House vote on withdrawing combat troops from Iraq – to begin in 3 months, and to be completed six months later. We started working with Rep. James McGovern 18 months ago; we were in his D.C. office seven weeks ago during the first fight over the Iraq supplemental, when he committed to getting some form of his bill (or the “Lee Amendment”) to the floor. And it got 171 votes yesterday – less than 50 shy of victory. With each balloting, we’ll get closer. This vote took place because of years of “outside” grassroots activism, combined with the “inside” leadership of Out of Iraq stalwarts in Congress like Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, Raul Grijalva, Dennis Kucinich, Diane Watson, to name just a few.The final tally surprised the Democratic leaders, MoveOn and many others. Nearly 3 out of 4 Democrats – risking accusations of defeatism and surrender and emboldening terrorism – voted to wind down the unwinnable U.S. occupation of Iraq. Late Wednesday night, we were among the first to hear that the McGovern Amendment would be voted on. PDA and our allies instantly mobilized. 171 YES votes. . .after just a few hours of organizing. Imagine what we could have accomplished with a few weeks. More importantly, imagine how much we can accomplish before the next (hopefully soon) House vote to end the Iraq occupation. And before primary elections of 2008, when dead-ender Democratic incumbents who voted to stay in Iraq may find themselves voted out of their jobs. Did you notice that Rep. Jane Harman joined the 171 YES votes? Can anyone spell W-I-N-O-G-R-A-D? PDA and our allies need to consider possible primary challenges in states from Maryland to Florida to Colorado to Utah. We can end this occupation. We can keep building PDA, and broader peace and justice movements. We can drive Republicans and pro-war/pro-corporate Democrats out of office. Last night, after the McGovern amendment was voted down, the House leadership passed its latest supplemental plan – funding months of escalated occupation, while holding back money until the President reports on progress toward “benchmarks.” The Senate is expected to pass an even weaker measure aimed at compromise with the White House. But let’s not forget Sen. Russ Feingold, who has about ten backers for his proposed Senate legislation to cut off funding for major Iraq combat by March 2008. Most Democratic presidential contenders are in the Senate – failure to support Feingold should disqualify anyone from consideration. No candidate can be taken seriously if they talk about “helping America’s working families” while sending billions of dollars to imperial adventures in Iraq, and threatening aggressive action against Iran. We have reason to be heartened by the growth of antiwar sentiment among the U.S. public – and on Capitol Hill. We can end this occupation, and transform American politics in the process. We couldn’t have come this far without your dedicated activism. Thank you for all you’ve done. In Solidarity, Tim Carpenter PS If your member of Congress voted for the McGovern Amendment yesterday, please call the district office and identify yourself as a Progressive Democrats of America member and thank them! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Senate to vote on ending war funding By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Mon May 14, 7:43 PM ET WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats are staging a dramatic anti-war vote this week, with moderates collaborating behind closed doors on legislation that could call on President Bush to rethink his war strategy. Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) announced Monday that members will decide whether to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, as well as consider a softer proposal calling for troops to leave this fall. The two measures would be offered as amendments to a water projects funding bill to be debated this week. The votes, expected by Wednesday, will probably fall short of the 60-vote threshold usually needed to advance controversial legislation. But they will help Reid, D-Nev., test the Senate's political waters at a time when the Democratic caucus is divided on how far Congress should go to end the war. "These are important votes," said Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau. "This will give members an opportunity to debate these issues and have up-or-down votes" on whether to end the war. Earlier this month, Bush vetoed a $124 billion supplemental bill, which would have funded the war but demanded troops begin coming home on Oct. 1. Not having enough votes to override the veto but unwilling to back down, House Democrats last week pushed through a new bill that would fund the war only through July. That bill is unlikely to survive the Senate, where several Democrats say they do not want to appear to be turning their backs on the troops by funding combat in installments. "On our side of the aisle, Democrats believe they should do something very, very close to what was done in the bill that was sent to the president to be vetoed," Reid said. Accordingly, Reid and Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) proposed that the Senate vote on legislation demanding troop withdrawals begin on Oct. 1 but allowing Bush to waive that requirement. Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, called the approach the Senate's "second-best" option. "By providing for the presidential waiver, we are removing any reason for the president to veto the supplemental funding bill," he said. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush opposes the Levin amendment. "Such timelines tie the hands of our commanders, weaken our friends, embolden our enemies and enhance the risk faced by our troops in combat," Perino said. "The bottom line is that a date for retreat is a date for retreat, and the president opposes such provisions." Under pressure from other more liberal party members, Reid also wants to give members a chance to cut off money for combat operations after March 31, 2008. Reid co-sponsored the legislation earlier this year alongside Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), but he said he would not push it as a caucus position. "The American people deserve to have the Senate go on record about whether or not it wants to end our misguided mission in Iraq and safely redeploy our brave troops," said Feingold, D-Wis. The votes come as nearly a dozen Republican senators have been discussing possible legislation on the war, including a proposal by Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) that would call on the president to re-evaluate his Iraq strategy if the Baghdad government does not meet certain benchmarks. "We're trying to put together a single document" that would address concerns of GOP senators, Warner, R-Va., said in an interview. Warner said he personally backs requiring reports before the August recess and in September on the extent to which Iraqis are making progress on political and security reforms. Warner said he wants to get a report by July at least "so members of Congress have an evaluation of that situation as they presumably go back to their respective constituencies." If the Baghdad government fails in meeting the benchmarks, "then the president is to determine whether he is to revise the strategy that he laid forward," he added. Warner said he has been discussing the idea with the group and plans to talk about it Tuesday with Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Neb. The goal, he said, is to develop a proposal that attracts broad bipartisan support. The list of Republicans working with Warner include Sens. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record) of Maine and Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting record) of Minnesota. Nelson has drafted similar legislation that would go even further. If the Iraqis failed to make progress on certain political and security reforms, the U.S. would cut off reconstruction aid. Under the bill, the president could waive the restriction if he provides public justification. Nelson's bill also would require the U.S. commander in Iraq to testify by Sept. 15 on whether Bush's troop buildup around Baghdad is working. "The Senate needs to move forward," Nelson said. "The president has signaled he will accept reasonable benchmarks." The alliance of Nelson and Warner and other moderates on Iraq is reminiscent of the "Gang of 14," a group of senators who in 2005 drafted a compromise to end a Senate fight on judicial nominations. Source: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070514/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 16, 2007 11:51:08 GMT 4
Tell the Senate to End the War On Wednesday, your Senators will vote on an amendment by Senators Feingold and Reid to begin redeployment of troops out of Iraq by October 1, completing withdrawal and cutting funds for the war by March 21, 2008. Call your Senators today and tell them to support the Feingold-Reid amendment! Next week, the Senate will vote on a new version of the supplemental war funding bill. We don't know the details yet, but it looks like the Senate leadership will surrender to White House pressure by giving the President $95 billion for the war without any fixed timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Call you Senator today. And next week call your Senator again (we'll remind you) to tell them to vote against the supplemental war funding bill! Your calls do make a difference. Last week, 171 members of the House of Representatives voted for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq when they voted in support of the McGovern Amendment. This was a major step forward for the peace movement - we did not expect more than 125 votes! We need a similar showing in the Senate on the Feingold-Reid amendment. If you do not know who your Senators are click here: www.democrats.com/congressCall the Congressional Switchboard to be connected to your Senators: 202-224-3121 . Tell Both your Senators: 1. Vote Yes on the Feingold-Reid amendment (amendment no. 1098). 2. Vote No on the supplemental war funding bill next week. Make it clear to your Senator that a yes vote on Feingold-Reid is not a substitute for using the power of the purse to end the war - they must vote against any more money for the war by voting no on the supplemental. Your calls today are important! BUT - your calls next week are also vital! The bills that fund the war are the most crucial votes because that's where our leverage lies. Of the 171 House Members who voted for the McGovern bill, 159 of them turned around and voted to fund the war. Let's do better in the Senate! More Information: Senate Plays Charades on Iraq, by Bob Fertik: democrats.com/senate-plays-charades-on-iraq They're Not Benchmarks, by David Swanson: afterdowningstreet.org/node/22389 Live blogging of last week's House votes by David Swanson: afterdowningstreet.org/node/22334
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 17, 2007 8:20:52 GMT 4
[glow=red,2,300]UPDATE ON SENATE VOTE[/glow] [see previous post]Iraq Withdrawal Move Thwarted in Senate Wednesday May 16, 2007 4:31 PM By ANNE FLAHERTY Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008. The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and other Democrats who want to end the war. But the effort picked up support from members, including presidential hopefuls previously reluctant to limit war funding - an indication of the conflict's unpopularity among voters. The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential front-runner, previously opposed setting a deadline on the war. But she said she agreed to back the measure ``because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war.'' Sen. Barack Obama, another leading 2008 prospect, said he would prefer a plan that offers more flexibility but wanted ``to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the president and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course.'' The proposal had been expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance under Senate rules, but was intended to gauge the tolerance of members on anti-war legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid staged a series of war votes Wednesday to inform negotiations with the House on a war spending bill. ``We stand united.... in our belief that troops are enmeshed in an intractable civil war,'' said Reid, D-Nev. Feingold's measure, co-sponsored by Reid and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., proved divisive for Democrats. Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he opposes any measure that cuts off money for the war. ``We don't want to send the message to the troops'' that Congress does not support them, said Levin, D-Mich. ``We're going to support those troops.'' But other Democrats said the move was necessary. ``I'm not crazy about the language in the Feingold amendment, but I am crazy about the idea that we have to keep the pressure on,'' said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who also wants the Democratic presidential nomination. The Senate vote on Feingold's legislation was one of several expected Wednesday, as the Democratic-controlled Congress struggles to clear legislation for Bush's signature by the end of next week to continue U.S. military operations through Sept. 30. The House last week passed legislation funding the war on two separate, 60-day installments. The Senate must take the next step by passing its own measure. Given the political forces at work, that legislation will be a placeholder, its only purpose to trigger three-way negotiations involving the House, Senate and Bush administration on a final compromise. As a result, officials said Tuesday that Reid and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell had discussed jointly advancing a bill so barebones that it would contain no funds and do little more than express congressional support for the troops. Negotiations on the final compromise are expected to take days. Wednesday's votes on Feingold and other proposals ``will provide strong guidance to our conferees and help shape the conference negotiations we have ahead of us,'' said Reid. In addition to Feingold's measure, members were expected to vote on legislation by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., that would threaten billions of dollars in U.S. aid for Iraq if Baghdad does not make progress on certain military and political reforms. Reid said he would oppose Warner's measure because it doesn't go far enough; the proposal would allow the president to waive the restriction on foreign aid. ``It is nothing,'' said Reid. Levin pulled from the floor his proposal to set an Oct. 1 date to begin troop withdrawals, but allow the president to waive that requirement. He had pitched the idea with the expectation that the president would accept it because of the waiver; but, Levin said Wednesday he had been advised by the White House that the president would veto the measure regardless. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007Source: tinyurl.com/2lfeau
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 19, 2007 15:11:30 GMT 4
On Iraq, Kucinich wants the truth out John Warner, Warner For the Monitor May 12. 2007 8:21AM As recently reported by June Caldwell in the American Chronicle, presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich revealed that the Democrats in Congress made secret concessions to the Republicans in the just vetoed Iraq war funding bill, as well as in a version currently being negotiated. These include:• Privatization of Iraq's Oil This was in the original bill, but not shared with the public was the existence of a rule that said this clause could not be removed during debate on House floor. Privatization was posed as a benchmark that must be met or the United States would withdraw troops and refuse to offer peacekeeping troops to help rebuild the country. Privatization means international oil companies get 80 percent of the profits from exploitation of Iraq oil. • Bush could invade Iran without approval A clause that would have required him to first get approval from Congress first was removed. • Any timetables for troop withdrawal were to be removed in the post-veto version. It is clear that beyond the lies about WMDs , the high-sounding rhetoric about terrorism and democracy in the Middle East is still a smokescreen to hide the real reason for the Iraq War: oil profits. It is also clear that the Democrats are now complicit in the lies of this administration and its attempts to hide the facts from us. When Kucinich requested on the floor that the oil profits clause be removed from the bill, he was assured it would be. Finding that it was not, and after again demanding that it be removed, he was accused of "not being a loyal Democrat."Thank you, Congressman Kucinich, for being willing to give the truth to the American people!
JOHN WARNER Source: tinyurl.com/2hw89o
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 24, 2007 8:16:03 GMT 4
[glow=red,2,300]TODAY! Express your anger to Congress![/glow]
There are only a couple ways Congress can end this bloody, unwinnable occupation in Iraq. These do NOT include the approach of the Democratic leaders. That’s been a failure – as they now stand ready to give Bush $95 billion more war funding through an Iraq Supplemental bill that no longer has any timelines for troop withdrawal.
The final vote on the Iraq Supplemental is expected today [5/24/07] in both the Senate and House. Contact your Senators and member of Congress immediately (Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121).
Tell them NO BLANK CHECK for an occupation that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and U.S. troops in Iraq want ended.
Tell Democrats that continued no-strings-attached funding means Iraq becomes the Democrats’ war.
Ask them if they oppose a troop escalation, why are they funding it in full? Remind them of the only effective ways of ending the Iraq occupation:
1) Using the power of the purse to cut off funds to Iraq -- except those needed to safely withdraw our troops (and for humanitarian/reconstruction aid to the Iraqi people).
2) Using their investigative power to probe White House deceptions and distortions that propelled the Iraq invasion and occupation, and to impeach if necessary.
That Congressional switchboard number is 202-224-3121.
While distressed with Democratic leaders, PDAers know well that there are a number of stalwarts in Congress who keep battling for peace and justice and a principled, progressive Democratic Party. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a PDA Advisory Board member, issued this statement yesterday:
Grijalva Statement on Opposition to Iraq Supplemental May 23, 2007, Washington , DC
Representative Raúl M. Grijalva will be opposing the Iraq War Supplemental that is scheduled to be voted on in the House of Representatives this week.
He releases the following statement:
"I will oppose the Iraq supplemental to be voted on in the House this week. I continue to appreciate the difficult task that leadership faced in creating this legislation and the inclusion of a number of provisions in this bill that are desperately needed and that I wholeheartedly support. These include the minimum wage increase, continued recovery for the people and communities of the Gulf Cost region, and health care needs of our veterans and our children.
"I have opposed funding this war from the beginning, and I have no interest in funding it now. The previous supplemental, The Iraq Accountability Act, though flawed and at odds with many of my beliefs, represented a chance for hope. It had represented a first, all be it tentative, step in the difficult process of finally bringing this devastating war to an ultimate end through accountability standards that were tied to a withdrawal plan to bring our troops home.
"But I cannot in good conscience support this new version of an Iraq war funding bill. This bill removes important elements that hold the Administration accountable for its decisions in this quagmire; no more unwaivable benchmarks, no more required certification of the Iraq government's efforts to resolve long-standing political conflicts linked to a timeframe for transition allowing our troops to begin a long overdue schedule of redeployment home. These revisions have effectively reduced this supplemental to a paper tiger that will give the Administration an unfettered extension to this ill conceived occupation, and an implied sanction by this Congress of the war, at least through the end of this fiscal year.
"I cannot tell those individuals and the families of those individuals who have died or been injured in Iraq that I supported their continued participation in an unaccountable war without end.”
Besides calling Senators and Congress members to vote NO on the Iraq Supplemental, please contact your member of Congress and others to urge them to co-sponsor H Res 333, Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Cheney.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 7, 2007 8:49:56 GMT 4
BREAKING: Five US Reps Support Cheney ImpeachmentBy Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, Atlanta Progressive News (June 06, 2007) (APN) ATLANTA – US Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) has become the fifth total co-sponsor of US Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s (D-OH) bill to impeach Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, Atlanta Progressive News has learned. In addition to Kucinich, the additional three Members of Congress who have signed on to H. Res 333 are US Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), and Albert Wynn (D-MD)."This Administration has continued to erode the trust of the American people and enough is simply enough," stated US Rep. Clarke in a press release issued first to Atlanta Progressive News. "H.Res. 333 was introduced to the House of Representatives by Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio on April 24, 2007, and asserts that the vice president manipulated intelligence to make the case for going to war with Iraq, falsified a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and has threatened aggression against Iran," US Rep. Clarke says. "When the American people voted on November 7th, they asked for a change in direction by electing the Democratic party in the House and Senate. I have heard the loud cries of my constituents, and they want accountability. My support of HRes 333 reflects the voices of the residents of central Brooklyn."Congresswoman Clarke replaced US Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), who retired at the end of the 109th Session. US Rep. Owens had been one of the early supporters of Conyers's bill, H Res 635, which would have created a Select Committee to look into the possible grounds for impeaching President Bush. Congresswoman Clarke is her own woman and "does not follow the crowd," her spokesperson said, adding that constituents had regularly lobbied her to co-sponsor this bill. "Vice President Dick Cheney is the architect of the Administration's deception about the war. Cheney persistently and deliberately deceived the Congress and the American people about the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and the attack on September 11th. There should be a serious dialogue about the conduct of this Administration. Cheney should be held accountable for purposely misleading the American people. Despite the obvious lack of success on the ground, Vice President Cheney continued a barrage of propaganda claiming that we were winning the war and successfully rebuilding Iraq which is patently false. His statements and representations about the situation in Iraq amount to malfeasance for which he should be taken to task," said Wynn in a press release prepared for Atlanta Progressive News. Impeachment activist Tracie Stern of Atlanta World Can't Wait said the new co-sponsorships are exciting, but at the same time, the case for impeachment is so clear that these Members of Congress are actually just doing their duty.
Those Members who do not co-sponsor H Res 333 are enabling the Bush Adminstration, Stern said, adding "People need to step on to the stage of history.""At the urging of my constituents in Missouri's 1st Congressional District, and from Americans across the country, I cosponsored Congressman Kucinich's resolution regarding the impeachment of the Vice President because I believe that Mr. Cheney deliberately manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the Congress of the United States and the American people. That deception has resulted in a tragic, unnecessary war that has already cost the lives of over 3,300 brave Americans and has cost the taxpayers over $400 billion. The arrogant abuse of power and the complete disregard for the truth needs to stop," US Rep. Clay said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News. US Rep. Schakowsky (D-IL) recently told The Daily Northwestern college newspaper that Cheney misled the public by "intentionally manipulating intelligence in order to launch an elective war against Iraq. I believe it is crucial that the U.S. House of Representatives investigate the vice president's actions to determine if he should be impeached for lying to the American people to justify the war in Iraq." Missing in action was US Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) who had told WAOK radio in December 2005 he would sign a bill of impeachment of President Bush should it come across his desk [crimes committed by Bush would equally apply to Cheney in this case]. Of course, Lewis did not cosponsor US Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s (D-GA) bill filed at the end of the last Session which would have impeached Bush either.
Other MIAs include US Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) who recently made comments that she thought impeaching Cheney was a good idea, as reported by AfterDowningStreet.org [Waters’s Office has not returned a call seeking comment]; and US Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), who supported impeachment in the Minnesota legislature and campaigned for US Congress on the issue. This list could go on.The new cosponsorships on Kucinich’s bill are significant for a number of reasons. First, it shows there is more than one Member of Congress willing to entertain real accountability for the Bush Administration, despite the insistence of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) that impeachment is off the table. Also, this bill is calling for actual Articles of Impeachment for Cheney, unlike the last bill which not only was related to Mr. Bush, but created an investigative committee to look into possible impeachment rather than providing for actual possible impeachment. Therefore, cosponsorships on H Res 333 have even more weight than those which were listed on H Res 635 last Session. Also, since the time of H Res 635, Democrats have taken control of both the US House and Senate. Thus, impeachment is even more a real possibility on account of having the potential Democratic support for the bill, even though most Democrats currently aren’t rushing to impeach Bush. Because Democrats are now the Majority in Congress, we also now know that Bush refuses to be accountable to Congress, particularly on the US Invasion of Iraq. Bush has now vetoed historic legislation to attach funding for the Occupation with a deadline for withdrawal. Thus, it is now even more clear that traditional oversight mechanisms will not be effective. The House Judiciary Committee told APN there are no plans to have hearings on impeachment of Cheney or anyone else at this time. "It’s not at this time on the Committee’s immediate agenda," Conyers’s spokesperson said. "Once its referred it has to be on the Committee’s agenda for the Committee to take it up," they said. "In order to move a bill you have to have hearings scheduled on it," they said. When asked by APN if Conyers taking impeachment "off the table" meant based on present information or whether it was complete abdication of a constitutional mechanism no matter what information comes forward, "All we can speak to is the present time," the spokesperson said, adding it would be unwise to speculate about the future. "I don’t think it’s prejudging," they said. The 39 total co-sponsors of H Res. 635 were US Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Jackson, Jr., (D-IL), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Dianne Watson (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. David Wu (D-OR). It was largely viewed that US Rep. Conyers, the original sponsor of H Res 635, did not re-file his bill out of respect to Pelosi and his desire to be appointed Chair of the Judiciary Committee. Moreover, several Members of Congress have stated that they have followed in Conyers’s steps in choosing not to introduce similar bills of their own. About the author:
Matthew Cardinale is the News Editor of Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com.Source: www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0169.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 21, 2007 7:42:22 GMT 4
Bush Administration to Phase in New Passport RulesMorning Edition, June 20, 2007 · The Bush administration will soon announce its plans for enforcing a new requirement that all Americans show a passport when crossing the border by land from Canada and Mexico. The rule is to begin in January 2008.The Homeland Security Department plan is an effort to appease lawmakers who are pushing to delay the new rule until June 2009, citing major backlogs at passport offices that came after similar new rules were instituted for air travel this year. Lawmakers are angry about the passport backlog. Tuesday, they grilled Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty about the new rules, and delays in issuing passports. Florida Sen. Bill Nelson said that earlier this week, his office helped a 78-year-old constituent who was told she had to drive 7 hours to Miami and get in line at 4 a.m. to receive her passport. "It is something that has caused a great deal of consternation," Nelson said. "Some people have been waiting as long as five months for a passport. We've got to get this straightened out." Harty said applications were much higher than projected for the start of the year. That's when new rules went into effect requiring passports for all air travel between the United States and Mexico, Canada and the Caribbean. "We simply did not foresee 5.4 million people applying in three months' time," Harty told the panel. But Harty said the numbers also grew because people realize a passport is something, in the post-Sept. 11 world, that they will need as a reliable form of ID. "We're seeing an incredible number of people [applying] who are indicating they have no travel plans," Harty said. "I think in some ways we drummed up business and more business than we had anticipated. It was a mistake, Sir. I'll accept that." Nelson and others said that even so, more should have been done. And now they're worried about what's going to happen if the Bush administration moves forward with plans to require passports for all land crossings from Canada and Mexico in 2008. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, said, "The word's getting out all over the place, you need a passport. So, in addition to the ones that are traditionally going to come in and say, 'I need it to fly,' you're going to have an avalanche of people that are going to be wanting these passports by January first of next year because they've been told that they have to have it." Harty said she is hiring and training more people to reduce the backlog. But she also said the administration will propose that passport requirements for land travel be phased in over the next year, instead of taking effect all at once. "Which will demonstrate that we have heard you and have heard your constituents," Harty said. "As a result, that rule, as introduced, will be very flexible." The House voted overwhelmingly last week to delay the new passport rules for land travel until June of 2009, and the Senate appears headed in the same direction. Still, the Bush administration wants to get the rules in place next year. Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke says that tighter passport requirements are crucial for border security and were a major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. "We have an urgency to be able to get this done and to be able to get this done as quickly as we can," Knocke said. "Otherwise, we're merely tempting fate and we're putting a tremendous burden on frontline personnel." Despite those statements, lawmakers and businesses say they will still push for a delay until 2009. Ken Oplinger, co-chairman of the U.S.-Canadian trade group Business for Economic Security, Tourism and Trade, says it will only confuse people if, as expected, the administration proposes requiring certain forms of ID at the border next January, with passports not required until later in the year. "What we want is simply a date, where up until that date X is allowed," Oplinger said, "[and] after that date, Y is allowed. "We don't want to have to try to extend this out for a year-and-a-half time period and explain to the average traveler what it is that they need." He says the current passport chaos should be all the evidence the administration needs to know that it shouldn't rush into anything new until it's ready. **************************************************** What You Need to Know About Passport Rulesby Thomas Pierce NPR.org, January 23, 2007 · In January, hopping on a flight to Toronto became more difficult. According to new rules that went into effect in January, all flyers, including American citizens, are required to carry a valid passport or other "appropriate documents" when traveling into the United States from anywhere in the Western Hemisphere — including Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, the Caribbean and Central and South America. The requirement, however, does not apply to U.S. citizens returning from a U.S. territory — such as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. And for those who have applied for passports and have yet to receive them, the requirement has been waived until Sept. 30, 2007. This plan, which took effect, in January, called the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), was announced in April 2005. The changes in passport rules were mandated in 2004, when Congress passed a massive piece of legislation called the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. In addition to reforming intelligence agencies, the act was designed to increase border protection and beef up transportation security. More specifically, the act stipulated that the Departments of Homeland Security and State revamp their travel document requirements. Travel by land and sea hasn't changed. On June 20, the Bush administration said it would postpone an plan, which was set to take effect as early as January 2008, requiring that the same rules apply to these forms of travel. Now, it's not likely to apply until later in 2008. Before that next big adventure to Canada or Mexico, check out this list of documents you can currently use to cross the border: ALL-PURPOSE TRAVEL DOCUMENTS
PASSPORTWhat It Is: The passport is still the golden ticket of world travel. U.S. citizens can use their passports when returning to the country by air from Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean and Bermuda. But not everyone has a passport. Only one-fourth of Americans have a passport. How You Get It: To get a passport for the first time, you'll need a valid form of photo ID, such as a driver's license, proof of U.S. citizenship and two photographs of yourself. Take those to an approved acceptance facility — that includes post offices, some public libraries, federal, state and probate courts and some county and municipal buildings. If you are traveling within 14 days, you can visit one of 13 regional passport agencies, but you'll need an appointment. (Check out the State Department's site for more information.) When to Use It: For travel from or to anywhere in the world, by air, land or sea. I-551 FORM (GREEN CARD)What It Is: Proof of legal residency in the United States for non-U.S. citizens. How You Get It: See the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's Web site for details. When to Use It: Permanent U.S. residents can still use their green cards when returning to the United States by land, air or sea in the Western Hemisphere. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LIMITED-USE TRAVEL DOCUMENTS
NEXUS CARDWhat It Is: A card for travel between the U.S. and Canada only. How You Get It: The card is already available, but only to citizens or permanent residents of Canada or the United States. You can apply for the NEXUS card by submitting an application and going through a registration process. If you satisfy the eligibility criteria and pass the risk assessments of both countries, you'll be issued a card. When to Use It: You can use the NEXUS card for air travel in conjunction with the NEXUS air program at participating airports. Just insert the card at self-serving kiosks. You'll most likely also be able to use the card for land and sea travel between Canada and the United States, once those rules kick in. DRIVER'S LICENSEWhat It Is: License to drive issued by your state of residency or the District of Columbia. How You Get It: Check with your local department of motor vehicles. When to Use It: U.S. citizens crossing the Mexican and Canadian border by land do not technically need any documentation to enter the United States. All they have to do is assert their U.S. citizenship. But if a border agent questions you, be prepared to show a driver's license. A birth certificate or voter registration card will also work as valid ID. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER VALID TRAVEL DOCUMENTS
U.S. Military Identification: Soldiers on active duty who are traveling by land, air or sea on orders are exempt from passport requirements and can use their valid military identification instead. Merchant Mariner Document (MMD): U.S. citizen merchant mariners can apply for this document with the U.S. Coast Guard. It allows them to return to the United States by air, land or sea from anywhere in the Western Hemisphere when on official business. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPOSED TRAVEL DOCUMENT
PASS CARD: This card is still just a concept under review by U.S. officials. If it does get developed, it would function as a cheaper alternative for U.S. citizens who do not wish to use a passport for travel only by land and sea between the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda. Source:www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11208245
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 6, 2007 14:58:36 GMT 4
Welcome Congress Back! Congressional Call-In DayThur. 09/06/07 7:00 AM TODAY, is the national call in day....if you can't or didn't make your call today, no worry...call any day you can.....Show Congress we are on their tails and here to stay!.....MichelleJoin the nationwide effort to flood the offices of our member of Congress with calls demanding an end to the U.S. war in Iraq. Let's make it clear: there cannot be "business as usual" in Washington. We need to bring our troops home immediately! Your voice is extremely important to the decision makers in Washington, and we need to tell them, "Bring the troops home now, and take care of them when they get here!"When: Thursday, Sept. 6 Capitol Hill Switchboard: 202-224-3121 Other numbers to reach Capitol Hill switchboard: (800) 828 - 0498 (800) 459 - 1887 (800) 614 - 2803 Call your Representative and both Senators on Thursday, September 6th. Click here to learn who your representatives are: www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=OEdJRCbWtOcQFISkiBKQ3G0vWLK9dVGOTell them: "I want you to act now to end the war and occupation of Iraq. The Congress has the Constitutional right and a moral responsibility to use the power of the purse to withdraw all U.S. soldiers and contractors from Iraq on a rapid and binding schedule. Four and a half years of this war is too long - it has to end now!"TIPS FOR CALLING YOUR REPRESENTATIVE'S OFFICE When you call, ask for the aide who deals with your issue. Tell the aide who you are and where you are calling from, identifying yourself as a constituent. Briefly state why you are calling and ask what the congressperson?s position is on the measure. Then explain what action you are asking your congressperson to take: co-sponsor a bill, vote for or against a measure, etc.* BACKGROUND In September, Congress will focus on Iraq. They will vote on the President's request for continued funding of the war. At this writing, the request stands at $142 billion, but Bush will probably increase it to over $190 billion! Congress is not required to give Bush any of this money, or even to bring the request to a vote. Congress can also put restrictions, firm withdrawal time lines and other conditions on any funding in order to force an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.* www.fcnl.org/getin/resources/phone_lobby.htm VETERANS WORKING TOGETHER FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE THROUGH NON-VIOLENCE. Veterans For Peace, 216 S. Meramec, St. Louis, MO 63105, 314-725-6005 www.veteransforpeace.org
|
|